On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:01:59PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > > On 23 Feb 2018, at 10:53, Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Given the lengthy debate over what is mostly a small cosmetic patch, I > > suggest that we postpone this one for now and drop it from the series. > > memset in C++ code is not just a style issue, it’s dangerous. It completely > wipes out C++ type guarantees. For example, if someone inits a field with > > int x = 1; > > Then all constructors will guarantee that x == -1, but a memset after > object creation wipes out that guarantee. Same thing if we make of of > the objects being memset-initialized contain some C++ object with a > vtable. And so on. All these problems do not exist with C++ > zero-initialization.
Is this an actual problem with the 2 structs which are being discussed here? In other word, is this patch currently fixing a bug? I don't think it does, so it can safely be postponed for a later time when people get to an agreement on it, or when we have less patches pending, ... > Which is also significantly shorter to write. I did not mention it the first time, but this patch is added more lines that it removes. So I'll beg to disagree with the "shorter" part ;) Christophe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
